its bullshit that obama is attractive to women. he is a fake. romney on the other hand is attractive not only in looks but also in the way he treats his wife. he was speaking to some fellow who was walking with him and when anne romney wasnt able to keep up, mitt stopped, put his arm around her and resumed his conversation. he is aware of his wife at all times and protective of her. romney is genuine. obama gives nice speeches.

Women may not monolithically think with their uteri, but if Romney is neither a respecter of uteri nor a cockle-warmer he's lost both the female and male votes. And remember, "Try not to look like a heartless bastard!" may have been useful to W Bush but was of no help to the Tin Man. Also, I would bet a lot that Obama likes basketball and dogs. At least he plays basketball (rather than knowing some team owners) and he doesn't (as far as people know) transport his dog on the roof.

The DNC aide quoted yesterday wanted the country to know that Ann Romney had never held a job. Wow, Ann gave it right back to her through a great tweet. The first lady to be raised five children and this was a full time job. When they were sick you were there no matter your physical condition and although Ann has battled illness she has not complained. Changing diapers was a daily occurrence at the Romney house with little stair steps emerging. Supervising her children’s school work, activities, preparing their meals, sharing their frustrations, you bet that was a real job. Try placing a price on that type of 24 hour service.

In this era of government subsidized work and staff positions how quickly we forget the sacrificial and hard work it takes to raise kids. This is a ridiculous comment coming from a staffer in the DNC. Conducting a campaign for women and ignoring the hard sacrificial work of the mother whether she is single or married is a legacy that will doom the current White House tenant. A gender gap for the Romneys-no way. They represent women’s rights.
Women now understand this fact.

Here is a first lady to be who stands for women. She has proven her great capacity for the rights of all women-including the mother whether single or married. She is a great lady and we as a nation will enjoy her compassion and service to others.

Who made you a spokesmen for women? You are just as unappointed as Ann Romney. Also since when were women a single monolithic voting block? Are we to be assumed to be less educated then you sir? Or less intelligent?
Elizabeth,
in Virginia

This analysis seems awfully glib. Romney's shortfall with women is real, so simply brushing it aside doesn't make it so. Our leaders are all part of an Ivy League establishment because this is who the party establishment presents to us as nominees.

Yes, Romney has secured the GOP nomination, but this is hardly a sign of what the general electorate wants. The GOP primary electorate is a tiny subset of even registered Republicans. Turnout for some of these primaries was 5% or less of all eligible voters.

romney might be more attractive to some women if he flirted or had a rumored liaison (meaning he's available) but thats not his style. he is a decent family man and if given the chance would make a terrific president.

Romney's likability to women is the kind of 'issue' which will be superceded in the 7 months between now and the election. We will be struck over the next 6 months with just how alike Obama and Romney are, and how unlike the American public they are, and how only a very narrow elite can be elected president. I guarantee both parties will make the other candidate unlikeable by November.

When we get to November, the Presidential race will be closely linked to the congressional race. If we appear (as we do now) headed for a Republican House and a 50/50 Senate, we'll re-elect Obama to reign in the excesses of the Republican House. Romney's only real hope is if it looks like the Democrats will make gains in Congress. When the American people are uncertain as to the best course ahead, and when they don't have a strong candidate as leader, they elect a mixed ticket. The Republican victories in 2002 and 2004 were a visceral reaction to 9/11. The Democratic victory in 2008 was a visceral reaction to the failures of the Iraq war and the financial crisis. There is nothing to get visceral about today. We'll elect a mixed ticket, which probably means Obama and a Republican House.

I'm a strange animal - it's called a beta-male. I don't really compete with other men - I used to just spend lots of "quality time" with their women.

My best friends are mostly women. And their advice is not what we men have led the world to believe. It’s not women who are the emotional irrational ones driven by hormones. My wife is infinitely more sensible than I am.

So what women voters think, unless they have been brainwashed by religion (The Lord says I am supposed to obey my husband), is an important part of the mix.

And since Romney lacks human appeal, then he will not gain their vote.

Anyway, why do we expect more out of our presidents, than the British expect out of their butlers?

I don't think the president necessarily needs an Ivy League degree, but I don't apologize for believing he/she should be an "above average American." I also don't apologize for believing the president should be educated, and yes, he probably should have some kind of graduate-level education. He is running one of the largest countries on earth. He needs to know about law, economics, business and military strategy, and dare I say it-- he SHOULD know a bit about science. How could anyone possibly be surprised by the idea that voters want someone "above average"? I needed a graduate degree from a top school and a solid background to get MY job, shouldn't we expect that much more from the president?

Another poster mentioned that even in America, one can't be ordinary to be President. True - I expect my President to be extraordinary. But it's OK if they come from ordinary circumstances. That is one of the things I admire about Pres. Obama. He came from an ordinary middle class home - but he went on to do extraordinary things. He succeeded at top schools. He displayed a genuine interest in seeking knowledge and an passion for the laws of our country, to the point of teaching Constitutional law. These are qualities that we should look for in our Presidential candidates. Yes, they should be extraordinary.

I am a man, but I have to say that women today are so much smarter
at making the correct choices than men. I am presently living in China and see the the intelligence gap between men and women is even greater here than in the States. They donot trust Romney for some
reason, and I believe american women.

As a woman, I'm desperately awaiting Kathleen Sebilous' next crisis. I almost fell apart when Susan B. Komen said breast-cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood weren't part of its mission. And then Kathleen graciously dropped her Contraception Bomb during the GOP debate! How awkward!

Honestly, all I really want in life is to be Warren Buffett's secretary!

"Michael Gerson, a former speech-writer for George W. Bush, argues that Mr Romney could make himself more attractive to female voters by adopting something along the lines of Mr Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in order to reassure women and independents "that Republicans give a damn about someone other than Republican primary voters", and that he truly cares about "improving the lives of the vulnerable". "

Stick feathers in a rats bottom, won't get you a chicken, just an irritated rat.

Compassionate conservativism.. The Shrub made sure that I'd never respond to that phrase with anything short of the gag reflex. Think. "Passion Fingers" here.

RoMoney is an awful person. Even more ridiculous is the newfounding claim that "Obama is damaging to women." Are you freaking kidding me? The Republicans and Mitt are treating women like they're morons, and insulting us immensely along the way, which is unacceptable. There is absolutely nothing Mitt Romney could do to get my vote. Hopefully my fellow women will see through this charade and make the right decision.
Obama/Biden 2012

Romney is the lesser of two evils? That's hilarious. Romney seems like the anti-christ. I don't even know how he's gained so much popularity. Every time I look at him, he just gives off such a "snake"/"I'm a terrible manipulative, full of BS" vibe - He can't even complete a logical sentence or finish a thought. He's sooooo untrustable as well, and it's clear he's a money hungry, power monger. Seriously, if he ever becomes Prez, which god forbid, I'm leaving the country. I despise RoMoney with every ounce of my being. *shudders*

Yeah but you really have faith in Romney? Just look at the guy. What makes you think he can "fix" this economy if he can't even form a complete sentence? And what's the say he's not going to just break up the US and sell it piece by piece? Just look what he did with Bain Capital, all he knows is corruption and greed.

Ugh and just looking at him, he looks like a freaking robot. He is not the man I want to represent the United States of America. There are just so many things wrong with Romney. All of this talk about him is just making me cringe.

He can't fix the economy. "Fixing" the economy is just the normal promisorial political BS. The Republican party practices irony. They are the ones who say gubnit can only screw things up, so they run for political office to prove it (see Pres. Shrub). The problem with this sort of rhetorical strategy is that it suggests they intend to screw things up either out of malice, disregard, or incompetence.

The next problem is the laughable contradiction: they promise to fix things via gubnit. [Dear Republican Party, to establish your credentials for office, first you must establish you can work yourself out of a logical wet paper bag.]

With regard to Romney the political office holder, you need to really look at is gubernatorial record, not his business record. The two positions are not the same thing.

Romney does evidence spine with regard to assaults on his faith. He isn't uptight about his family life which speaks well on that regard.

That said, my issue with Romney is not him per-se but the bargain he's made make with party apparati and apparatchiks that come with him. I don't vote for somebody whose only job is to hand the office over to his paymasters.

But is Romney a guy you can have a beer with? Isnt that an enormous bug-bear for Republicans/Conservatives? Perhaps the fact that he is not is what helped virtually all his challengers during their momentary runs at the nomination. Funny how things have changed since 2008; I also wonder if religion will become a hot topic this election cycle or if both candidates and the press will step back.

Even though they are linked ... I'm guessing Romney's religion is more of a handicap for him among Republican primary voters than his lack of beer-enjoying acumen. Republicans voted for Bob Dole and Bush I, who weren't exactly guys the average American would pal around with. But a non-trivial fraction of Republican voters said outright they would not vote for a Mormon, and I can only imagine how many felt the same but wouldn't say it out loud.

And another thing. WW says Barack Obama is a "condescending bore"? He fakes smiles and a love for basketball? WW, I know you get a little tingly feeling when you see Paul Ryan, but I think you'd better talk to some real women about female intuition. Women I know look at Barack Obama, and they look at Barack Obama looking at Michelle Obama. And they look at him bury a three pointer with no sound but the small sudden gasp of strings yielding to skill. And when they see these things, something gives them a tingly feeling. Women do, after all, spend half their lives detecting and fending off fakers. When they see how this POTUS touches his first lady or his jump shot, those sensors shine bright green.

There will only be one faker in this election, and even WW should know who it is.

"The second one is that this matters, and matters profoundly, especially to women, whose status as voters is equal under the law but who are still treated by many political journalists, even conspicuously liberal ones, as semi-free electoral automata driven by their hearts, their hormones, and their unique sensitivity to 'vibes.'"